Kamero89 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Global warming is acknowledged by 90% of the scientific community. MUST we continue to have debates over something that is fact? If you think this is a giant conspiracy planted by liberals you are an idiot. OR you are right, what they really want is to raise money for these scientists to "re-search" it, which actually means paying scientists do sit on their buts all day, and high fiving. The 6 years + all these scientist went to school for is just a giant cover up. Almost all things that say climate change is not man made, and global warming is not real link back in someway to the Republican(American conservatives) party. I am pretty sure the same people denying this are distant relatives of people who though the earth is flat, and that gravity does not exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 lol I did some research, Bill Nye has a science degree at an ivy league school (Cornell University), and she went(and did not finish) to a state college. There is nothing wrong with going to a state college, but 10 months of going to a school not even ranked in the top 20 in your regional area, does not give you the right to slam someone credibility who attended a top 10 nation wide school for 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Almost all things that say climate change is not man made, and global warming is not real link back in someway to the Republican(American conservatives) party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Hey y'all don't say that!! Bill Nye is a beautiful man who entertained millions through science class starting from elementary school all the way to high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Global warming is acknowledged by 90% of the scientific community. MUST we continue to have debates over something that is fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 My main point wasn't about global warming it was about respect. When you interview them you treat them with respect as a journalist even if you're own opinions differ from they believe in. You ask questions, you don't offer your own insight. Ask questions remain neutral so that the person has to present the merit of their beliefs through evidence, reason, and speaking ability. CNN did the opposite of this. With this being the case is there any mainstream media that still is impartial with the guests they interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 75% of it is man-made. http://www.nature.co...man-made-1.9538 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 My main point wasn't about global warming it was about respect. When you interview them you treat them with respect as a journalist even if you're own opinions differ from they believe in. You ask questions, you don't offer your own insight. Ask questions remain neutral so that the person has to present the merit of their beliefs through evidence, reason, and speaking ability. CNN did the opposite of this. With this being the case is there any mainstream media that still is impartial with the guests they interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Why's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The entire basis of science is that debate is NEVER over. When you stop debating, discussing, researching, searching for errors, searching for a better solution, it's no longer scientific, it's dogmatic, you can never evolve your thinking, nor will it allow you to concede to error if you're wrong. This is the opposite of science, it's religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Man is insignificant compared to the Sun, Clouds, Wind, Volcanoes, Forest fires, Lightning strikes, Earthquakes Sunamis etc. If man actually caused climate change we would all be long dead. The sun is the culprit, go yell at it not humans. Bill Nye is a huge liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Who's ass did you pull that number out of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 More like 75% of it is made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 see post #26 above yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Yes debate is a crucial part of science, but there are establish facts, or settled science if you will. Gravity is a fact. DNA is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Plate tectonics is a fact. In climate science, there are established facts, just as any other field in science. Here are some:Greenhouse effect.CO2 is a greenhouse gas.CO2 is increasing.CO2 increase is due to human activity.Earth is warming.Effect of CO2 is large enough to explain the warming. You can accuse climate science to be politicised, you can accuse it being a cult/religion, but at the end of the day, you really have no evidence that any of these facts being wrong. Climate science is any thing but new. Greenhouse effect was first investigated by Fourier in 1820, which predates modern physics, modern molecular biology, evolution, plate tectonics. So yes, it has been around long enough to have a set of settled facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 NCSE's climate expert Mark McCaffrey dissects climate change denial; the use of doubt, delay, and denial; myths and misperceptions deniers push, and more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Climate science also suggested a mere 40 years ago that we were headed into an ice age using the very same knowledge you cited, that theory has been updated.. go back to 1820 all you wish, things are only "settled" to someone who has pre-emptively settled themselves, such rigid beliefs are nothing to be confused with science. I don't have the "facts" as you in absolute terms describe (and you guys use the word "facts" as if that instantly gives it leverage -- it doesn't), unlike people here I won't claim to be a climatologist or have their knowledge, nor will I piggyback on someone else's studies, but one thing you mistake is that the issue is centred around taking current samples and the data therein. No, there's increasing scepticism of not only the alarmist man-made climate change theories but especially climate models that are used to predict doom and gloom, and used as a wedge to inflict political change that has a drastic impact on a number of economies, this one included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'm sure you and the rest of the scientific illiterati out there think so. Forgive me for not taking anything you say on this topic as remotely credible considering you earn an income derived from Canada's largest source for greenhouse gases there in Alberta via the tarsands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Ok fair enough, I can agree with you that science is evolving and our understanding of climate change is subject to change. Can you however, agree with me that given what we do know the overwhelming evidence does suggest the Earth is warming and the likely cause of that warming is due to us humans? If so then can we agree that based on the precautionary princple, wouldn't it make sense to take action to reduce the amount of carbon we emit just in case all that evidence may actually be right? The risks of not taking any action are far greater than the risks of taking action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (Munches on popcorn) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.